On Jun 20, 2010, at 04:28 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> I'm going to declare rough consensus around this approach and I'll have a >> Python policy patch for review shortly. I haven't had time to read this through yet, but I recently posted some information related to Python on Debian and Ubuntu and requested off-list feedback. One of the more interesting messages I got was from someone who was trying to install a package that has been ported to Python 3, is available on Ubuntu for both Python 2 and 3, and wanted one command to install both binary packages. He was using Synaptic but I don't think that matters. It seems to me that the right way to handle this would be meta-packages that included dependencies on both the Python 2 and Python 3 version of the underlying packages. Maybe we should consider supporting this, and coming up with an agreed-upon naming scheme. E.g. for Python package 'foo', we'd have: * python-foo - the binary package for foo in Python 2 * python3-foo - the binary package for foo in Python 3 * python-2and3-foo - for the meta package that installs both of the above "python-2and3-foo" is probably a crappy naming convention. 1) Is this a good idea? 2) Can you suggest a better name? -Barry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature